Accessory pathway localization with probabilistic density maps generated by a mobile application: Assessment of a full pre-excitation net-vector method.

INTRODUCTION: Precise electrocardiographic localization of accessory pathways (AP) can be challenging. Seminal AP localization studies were limited by complexity of algorithms and sample size. We aimed to create a nonalgorithmic method for AP localization based on color-coded maps of AP distribution generated by a web-based application. METHODS: APs were categorized into 19 regions/types based on invasive electrophysiologic mapping. Preexcited QRS complexes were categorized into 6 types based on polarity and notch/slur. For each QRS type in each lead the distribution of APs was visualized on a gradient map. The principle of common set was used to combine the single lead maps to create the distribution map for AP with any combination of QRS types in several leads. For the validation phase, a separate cohort of APs was obtained. RESULTS: A total of 800 patients with overt APs were studied. The application used the exploratory data set of 553 consecutive APs and the corresponding QRS complexes to generate AP localization maps for any possible combination of QRS types in 12 leads. Optimized approach (on average 3 steps) for evaluation of preexcited electrcardiogram was developed. The area of maximum probability of AP localization was pinpointed by providing the QRS type for the subsequent leads. The exploratory data set was validated with the separate cohort of APs (n = 256); p = .23 for difference in AP distribution. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest data set of APs to-date, a novel probabilistic and semi-automatic approach to electrocardiographic localization of APs was highly predictive for anatomic localization.

Arrhythmic Risk in Biventricular Pacing Compared With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Results From the I-CLAS Study.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may be associated with greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction and reduction in death or heart failure hospitalization compared with biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy. We sought to compare the occurrence of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients undergoing BVP and LBBAP. METHODS: The I-CLAS study (International Collaborative LBBAP Study) included patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for cardiac resynchronization therapy between January 2018 and June 2022 at 15 centers. We performed propensity score-matched analysis of LBBAP and BVP in a 1:1 ratio. We assessed the incidence of VT/VF and new-onset AF among patients with no history of AF. Time to sustained VT/VF and time to new-onset AF was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards survival model. RESULTS: Among 1778 patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (BVP, 981; LBBAP, 797), there were 1414 propensity score-matched patients (propensity score-matched BVP, 707; propensity score-matched LBBAP, 707). The occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (4.2% versus 9.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.29-0.74]; P<0.001). The incidence of VT storm (>3 episodes in 24 hours) was also significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (0.8% versus 2.5%; P=0.013). Among 299 patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers (BVP, 111; LBBAP, 188), VT/VF occurred in 8 patients in the BVP group versus none in the LBBAP group (7.2% versus 0%; P<0.001). In 1194 patients with no history of VT/VF or antiarrhythmic therapy (BVP, 591; LBBAP, 603), the occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (3.2% versus 7.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.26-0.81]; P=0.007). Among patients with no history of AF (n=890), the occurrence of new-onset AF >30 s was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (2.8% versus 6.6%; hazard ratio, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16-0.73]; P=0.008). The incidence of AF lasting >24 hours was also significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (0.7% versus 2.9%; P=0.015). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP was associated with a lower incidence of sustained VT/VF and new-onset AF compared with BVP. This difference remained significant after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics between patients with BVP and LBBAP. Physiological resynchronization by LBBAP may be associated with lower risk of arrhythmias compared with BVP.

Sex-Specific Outcomes of LBBAP Versus Biventricular Pacing: Results From I-CLAS.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing (BVP) has been associated with greater clinical improvement in women than men. Recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be an alternative form of CRT. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate sex-specific outcomes for death and heart failure events in a large, international, multicenter, cohort of patients undergoing CRT with BVP or LBBAP. METHODS: In this international study of 1,778 patients (575 female and 1203 male), sex-specific survival analysis was performed to compare the effect of LBBAP-CRT relative to BVP-CRT on the combined endpoint of death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and secondary endpoints of HFH only, and death alone. RESULTS: Female patients were more likely to have nonischemic cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block (LBBB) and less likely to have hypertension, diabetes, or coronary artery disease than were male patients. Overall, female patients had a better result with LBBAP compared with BVP than did male patients, with a significant 36% reduction in death or HFH (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.97; P = 0.03) and a significant 60% reduction in HFH alone (HR: 0.4; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.69, P < 0.01). Women had a greater reduction in death or HFH among those with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (HR: 0.45 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.79; P < 0.01) and LBBB (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.87; P < 0.01). Sex-specific echocardiographic outcomes were better in women than in men. CONCLUSIONS: Women obtained significantly greater reductions in the combined endpoint of death or HFH (primarily driven by reduction in HFH) with LBBAP compared with BVP among patients requiring CRT than did men.

Conventional biventricular pacing is still preferred to conduction system pacing for atrioventricular block in patients with reduced ejection fraction and narrow QRS.

It is well established that right ventricular pacing is detrimental in patients with reduced cardiac function who require ventricular pacing (VP), and alternatives nowadays are comprised of biventricular pacing (BiVP) and conduction system pacing (CSP). The latter modality is of particular interest in patients with a narrow baseline QRS as it completely avoids, or minimizes, ventricular desynchronization associated with VP. In this article, experts debate whether BiVP or CSP should be used to treat these patients.

Conduction system pacing: overview, definitions, and nomenclature.

Pacing from the right ventricle is associated with an increased risk of development of congestive heart failure, increases in total and cardiac mortality, and a worsened quality of life. Conduction system pacing has become increasingly realized as an alternative to right ventricular apical pacing. Conduction system pacing from the His bundle and left bundle branch area has been shown to provide physiologic activation of the ventricle and may be an alternative to coronary sinus pacing. Conduction system pacing has been studied as an alternative for both bradycardia pacing and for heart failure pacing. In this review, we summarize the clinical results of conduction system pacing under a variety of different clinical settings. The anatomic targets of conduction system pacing are illustrated, and electrocardiographic correlates of pacing from different sites in the conduction system are defined. Ultimately, clinical trials comparing conduction system pacing with standard right ventricular apical pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy pacing will help define its benefit and risks compared with existing techniques.

The evolving state of cardiac resynchronization therapy and conduction system pacing: 25 years of research at EP Europace journal.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was proposed in the 1990s as a new therapy for patients with heart failure and wide QRS with depressed left ventricular ejection fraction despite optimal medical treatment. This review is aimed first to describe the rationale and the physiologic effects of CRT. The journey of the landmark randomized trials leading to the adoption of CRT in the guidelines since 2005 is also reported showing the high level of evidence for CRT. Different alternative pacing modalities of CRT to conventional left ventricular pacing through the coronary sinus have been proposed to increase the response rate to CRT such as multisite pacing and endocardial pacing. A new emerging alternative technique to conventional biventricular pacing, conduction system pacing (CSP), is a promising therapy. The different modalities of CSP are described (Hirs pacing and left bundle branch area pacing). This new technique has to be evaluated in clinical randomized trials before implementation in the guidelines with a high level of evidence.

Cardiac Conduction System Pacing: A Comprehensive Update.

The field of cardiac pacing has changed rapidly in the last several years. Since the initial description of His bundle pacing targeting the conduction system, recent advances in pacing the left bundle branch and its fascicles have evolved. The field and investigators' knowledge of conduction system pacing including relevant anatomy and physiology has advanced significantly. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive update on recent advances in conduction system pacing.

Left bundle branch area pacing prevents pacing induced cardiomyopathy in long-term observation.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is one of the methods to deliver conduction system pacing which potentially avoids the negative impact of conventional right ventricular pacing. OBJECTIVE: To assess echocardiographic outcomes in a long-term observation in patients with LBBAP implemented for bradyarrhythmia indications. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 151 patients with symptomatic bradycardia and LBBAP pacemaker implanted, were prospectively included in the study. Subjects with left bundle branch block and CRT indications (n = 29), ventricular pacing burden <40% (n = 11), and loss of LBBAP (n = 10) were excluded from further analysis. At baseline and the last follow-up visit, echocardiography with global longitudinal strain (GLS) assessment, 12-lead ECG, pacemaker interrogation, and blood level of NT-proBNP were performed. The median follow-up period was 23 months (15.5-28). None of the analyzed patients fulfilled the criteria for pacing induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and GLS was observed in patients with LVEF <50% at baseline (n = 39): 41.4 ± 9.2% versus 45.6 ± 9.9%, and 12.9 ± 3.6% versus 15.5 ± 3.7%, respectively. In the subgroup with preserved EF (n = 62), LVEF and GLS remained stable at follow-up: 59.3 ± 5.5% versus 60 ± 5.5%, and 19 ± 3.9% versus 19.4 ± 3.8%, respectively. CONCLUSION: LBBAP prevents PICM in patients with preserved LVEF and improves left ventricle function in subjects with depressed LVEF. LBBAP might be the preferred pacing modality for bradyarrhythmia indications.

Comparison of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Biventricular Pacing in Candidates for Resynchronization Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart failure, and wide QRS or expected frequent ventricular pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a safe alternative to BVP. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between BVP and LBBAP among patients undergoing CRT. METHODS: This observational study included patients with LVEF ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for the first time for Class I or II indications for CRT from January 2018 to June 2022 at 15 international centers. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Secondary outcomes included endpoints of death, HFH, and echocardiographic changes. RESULTS: A total of 1,778 patients met inclusion criteria: 981 BVP, 797 LBBAP. The mean age was 69 ± 12 years, 32% were female, 48% had coronary artery disease, and mean LVEF was 27% ± 6%. Paced QRS duration in LBBAP was significantly narrower than baseline (128 ± 19 ms vs 161 ± 28 ms; P < 0.001) and significantly narrower compared to BVP (144 ± 23 ms; P < 0.001). Following CRT, LVEF improved from 27% ± 6% to 41% ± 13% (P < 0.001) with LBBAP compared with an increase from 27% ± 7% to 37% ± 12% (P < 0.001) with BVP, with significantly greater change from baseline with LBBAP (13% ± 12% vs 10% ± 12%; P < 0.001). On multivariable regression analysis, the primary outcome was significantly reduced with LBBAP compared with BVP (20.8% vs 28%; HR: 1.495; 95% CI: 1.213-1.842; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP improved clinical outcomes compared with BVP in patients with CRT indications and may be a reasonable alternative to BVP.

Bipolar anodal septal pacing with direct LBB capture preserves physiological ventricular activation better than unipolar left bundle branch pacing.

Background: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) produces delayed, unphysiological activation of the right ventricle. Using ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography (UHF-ECG), we explored how bipolar anodal septal pacing with direct LBB capture (aLBBP) affects the resultant ventricular depolarization pattern. Methods: In patients with bradycardia, His bundle pacing (HBP), unipolar nonselective LBBP (nsLBBP), aLBBP, and right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) were performed. Timing of local ventricular activation, in leads V1-V8, was displayed using UHF-ECG, and electrical dyssynchrony (e-DYS) was calculated as the difference between the first and last activation. Durations of local depolarizations were determined as the width of the UHF-QRS complex at 50% of its amplitude. Results: aLBBP was feasible in 63 of 75 consecutive patients with successful nsLBBP. aLBBP significantly improved ventricular dyssynchrony (mean -9 ms; 95% CI (-12;-6) vs. -24 ms (-27;-21), ), p < 0.001) and shortened local depolarization durations in V1-V4 (mean differences -7 ms to -5 ms (-11;-1), p < 0.05) compared to nsLBBP. aLBBP resulted in e-DYS -9 ms (-12; -6) vs. e-DYS 10 ms (7;14), p < 0.001 during HBP. Local depolarization durations in V1-V2 during aLBBP were longer than HBP (differences 5-9 ms (1;14), p < 0.05, with local depolarization duration in V1 during aLBBP being the same as during RVSP (difference 2 ms (-2;6), p = 0.52). Conclusion: Although aLBBP improved ventricular synchrony and depolarization duration of the septum and RV compared to unipolar nsLBBP, the resultant ventricular depolarization was still less physiological than during HBP.

EHRA clinical consensus statement on conduction system pacing implantation: endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS), and Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS).

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological alternative to right ventricular pacing and is also being used in selected cases for cardiac resynchronization therapy. His bundle pacing was first introduced over two decades ago and its use has risen over the last five years with the advent of tools which have facilitated implantation. Left bundle branch area pacing is more recent but its adoption is growing fast due to a wider target area and excellent electrical parameters. Nevertheless, as with any intervention, proper technique is a prerequisite for safe and effective delivery of therapy. This document aims to standardize the procedure and to provide a framework for physicians who wish to start CSP implantation, or who wish to improve their technique.

EHRA clinical consensus statement on conduction system pacing implantation: executive summary. Endorsed by the Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS) and Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS).

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological alternative to right ventricular pacing and is also being used in selected cases for cardiac resynchronization therapy. His bundle pacing was first introduced over two decades ago and its use has risen over the last years with the advent of tools which have facilitated implantation. Left bundle branch area pacing is more recent but its adoption is growing fast due to a wider target area and excellent electrical parameters. Nevertheless, as with any intervention, proper technique is a prerequisite for safe and effective delivery of therapy. This document aims to standardize the procedure and to provide a framework for physicians who wish to start CSP implantation, or who wish to improve their technique. A synopsis is provided in this print edition of EP-Europace. The full document may be consulted online, and a 'Key Messages' App can be downloaded from the EHRA website.

Conduction system pacing, a European survey: insights from clinical practice.

AIMS: The field of conduction system pacing (CSP) is evolving, and our aim was to obtain a contemporary picture of European CSP practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: A survey was devised by a European CSP Expert Group and sent electronically to cardiologists utilizing CSP. A total of 284 physicians were invited to contribute of which 171 physicians (60.2%; 85% electrophysiologists) responded. Most (77%) had experience with both His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Pacing indications ranked highest for CSP were atrioventricular block (irrespective of left ventricular ejection fraction) and when coronary sinus lead implantation failed. For patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and heart failure (HF), conventional biventricular pacing remained first-line treatment. For most indications, operators preferred LBBAP over HBP as a first-line approach. When HBP was attempted as an initial approach, reasons reported for transitioning to utilizing LBBAP were: (i) high threshold (reported as >2 V at 1 ms), (ii) failure to reverse bundle branch block, or (iii) > 30 min attempting to implant at His-bundle sites. Backup right ventricular lead use for HBP was low (median 20%) and predominated in pace-and-ablate scenarios. Twelve-lead electrocardiogram assessment was deemed highly important during follow-up. This, coupled with limitations from current capture management algorithms, limits remote monitoring for CSP patients. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides a snapshot of CSP implementation in Europe. Currently, CSP is predominantly used for bradycardia indications. For HF patients with LBBB, most operators reserve CSP for biventricular implant failures. Left bundle branch area pacing ostensibly has practical advantages over HBP and is therefore preferred by many operators. Practical limitations remain, and large randomized clinical trial data are currently lacking.

Worldwide survey on implantation of and outcomes for conduction system pacing with His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing leads.

BACKGROUND: Adoption and outcomes for conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), in real-world settings are incompletely understood. We sought to describe real-world adoption of CSP lead implantation and subsequent outcomes. METHODS: We performed an online cross-sectional survey on the implantation and outcomes associated with CSP, between November 15, 2020, and February 15, 2021. We described survey responses and reported HBP and LBBAP outcomes for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization CRT indications, separately. RESULTS: The analysis cohort included 140 institutions, located on 5 continents, who contributed data to the worldwide survey on CSP. Of these, 127 institutions (90.7%) reported experience implanting CSP leads. CSP and overall device implantation volumes were reported by 84 institutions. In 2019, the median proportion of device implants with CSP, HBP, and/or LBBAP leads attempted were 4.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 1.9-12.5%; range, 0.4-100%), 3.3% (IQR, 1.3-7.1%; range, 0.2-87.0%), and 2.5% (IQR, 0.5-24.0%; range, 0.1-55.6%), respectively. For bradycardia pacing indications, HBP leads, as compared to LBBAP leads, had higher reported implant threshold (median [IQR]: 1.5 V [1.3-2.0 V] vs 0.8 V [0.6-1.0 V], p = 0.0008) and lower ventricular sensing (median [IQR]: 4.0 mV [3.0-5.0 mV] vs. 10.0 mV [7.0-12.0 mV], p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, CSP lead implantation has been broadly adopted but has yet to become the default approach at most surveyed institutions. As the indications and data for CSP continue to evolve, strategies to educate and promote CSP lead implantation at institutions without CSP lead implantation experience would be necessary.

Right bundle branch pacing: Criteria, characteristics, and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Targets for right-sided conduction system pacing (CSP) include His bundle and right bundle branch. Electrocardiographic patterns, diagnostic criteria, and outcomes of right bundle branch pacing (RBBP) are not known. OBJECTIVE: Our aims were to delineate electrocardiographic and electrophysiological characteristics of RBBP and to compare outcomes between RBBP and His bundle pacing (HBP). METHODS: Patients with confirmed right CSP were divided according to the conduction system potential to QRS complex interval at the pacing lead implantation site. Six hypothesized RBBP criteria as well as pacing parameters, echocardiographic outcomes, and all-cause mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: All analyzed criteria discriminated between HBP and RBBP: double QRS complex transition during the threshold test, selective paced QRS complex different from conducted QRS complex, stimulus to selective-QRS complex > potential-QRS complex, small increase in V6 R-wave peak time (V6RWPT) during QRS complex transition, equal capture thresholds of CSP and myocardium, and stimulus-V6RWPT > potential-V6RWPT (adopted as the diagnostic standard). According to the last criterion, RBBP was observed in 19.2% of patients (64 of 326) who had been targeted for HBP, present mainly among patients with potential to QRS complex interval <35 ms (90.6% [48 of 53]) and occasionally among the remaining patients (5.6% [16 of 273]). RBBP was characterized by longer QRS complex (by 10.5 ms), longer V6RWPT (by 11.6 ms), and better sensing (by 2.6 mV) compared with HBP. During a median follow-up duration of 29 months, no differences in capture threshold, echocardiographic outcomes, or mortality were found. CONCLUSION: RBBP has distinct features that separate it from HBP and is observed in approximately a fifth of patients in whom HBP is intended.

Impact of Arterial Hypertension and Use of Antihypertensive Pharmacotherapy on Mortality in Patients Hospitalized due to COVID-19: The CRACoV-HHS Study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases including arterial hypertension are common comorbidities among patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. We assessed the influence of preexisting hypertension and its pharmacological treatment on in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: We studied all consecutive patients who were admitted to the University Hospital in Krakow, Poland, due to COVID-19 between March 2020 and May 2021. Data of 5191 patients (mean age 61.9±16.7 years, 45.2% female) were analyzed. RESULTS: The median hospitalization time was 14 days, and the mortality rate was 18.4%. About a quarter of patients had an established cardiovascular disease including coronary artery disease (16.6%) or stroke (7.6%). Patients with hypertension (58.3%) were older and had more comorbidities than patients without hypertension. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, age above median (64 years), male gender, history of heart failure or chronic kidney disease, and higher C-reactive protein level, but not preexisting hypertension, were independent risk factors for in-hospital death in the whole study group. Patients with hypertension already treated (n=1723) with any first-line antihypertensive drug (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, or thiazide/thiazide-like diuretics) had a significantly lower risk of in-hospital death (odds ratio, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.2-0.3]; P<0.001) compared to nontreated hypertensives (n=1305). CONCLUSIONS: Although the diagnosis of preexisting hypertension per se had no significant impact on in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19, treatment with any first-line blood pressure-lowering drug had a profound beneficial effect on survival in patients with hypertension. These data support the need for antihypertensive pharmacological treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Left bundle branch area pacing in patients with heart failure and right bundle branch block: Results from International LBBAP Collaborative-Study Group.

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing has limited efficacy in patients with heart failure (HF) and right bundle branch block (RBBB). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel physiologic pacing option. Objective: The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of LBBAP in HF patients with RBBB and reduced left ventricular systolic function, and indication for CRT or ventricular pacing. Methods: LBBAP was attempted in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%, RBBB, HF, and indications for CRT or ventricular pacing. Procedural, pacing, and electrocardiographic parameters; clinical response (no HF hospitalization and improvement in NYHA class); and echocardiographic response (≥5% increase in ejection fraction) to LBBAP were assessed. Results: LBBAP was attempted in 121 patients and successful in 107 (88%). Patient characteristics included age 74 ± 12 years, female 25%, ischemic cardiomyopathy 49%, and ejection fraction 35% ± 9%. QRS axis at baseline was normal in 24%, left axis 63%, right axis 13%. LBBAP threshold and R-wave amplitudes were 0.8 ± 0.3 V @ 0.5 ms and 10 ± 9 mV at implant and remained stable during mean follow-up of 13 ± 8 months. LBBAP resulted in narrowing of QRS duration (156 ± 20 ms to 150 ± 24 ms (P = .01) with R-wave peak times in V6 of 85 ± 16 ms. LVEF improved from 35% ± 9% to 43% ± 12% (P < .01). Clinical and echocardiographic response was observed in 60% and 61% of patients, respectively. Female sex and reduction in QRS duration with LBBAP were predictive of echocardiographic response and super-response. Conclusion: LBBAP is a feasible alternative to deliver CRT or physiologic ventricular pacing in patients with RBBB, HF, and LV dysfunction.